R v Clarke [2009] EWCA Crim 921
Criminal law – Medical Condition – Causing death by dangerous driving – Mitigation of death
Facts:
Clarke suffered from type 1 Diabetes and had a Hypoglycaemic attack at the wheel of his vehicle, causing him to hit two pedestrians on a footpath. He was convicted of dangerous driving causing death and sentenced to four years imprisonment.
Issues
On appeal, whether or not Clarke was aware of the onset of the attack and whether he could have prevented the incident. Secondly, whether the court were required to consider the sentence in light of Clarke’s deteriorating health condition and length of time between the offence and the appeal.
Decision/Outcome
Upon further consideration of Clarke’s deteriorating medical condition, the court found that Clarke probably would have had only a brief period of awareness before the imminent attack occurred. The judge applied the decisions of Cooksley (Robert Charles) [2003] EWCA Crim 996 and Richardson (Jack Virgil) [2006] EWCA Crim 3186 and also the Sentencing Guidelines Council’s guidelines, which determined a higher degree of culpability was required where an appellant had knowingly suffered a condition that was likely to significantly affect their ability to drive, leaving the court to determine that some degree of accountability was required. The rigid application of Richardsonand the Sentencing Guidelines would have resulted in imprisonment for 4-7 years. However, given the length of time the defendant had waited for the appeal as well as his current state of poor health likely to worsen in prison, the Court determined these to be highly exceptional circumstances and reduced Clarke’s culpability to below the expected sentencing range (one year). To that extent, the appeal was allowed. Given the severity of the offence, the imprisonment term could not be quashed entirely.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in R v Clarke [2009] EWCA Crim 921. The core legal principles discussed remain valid. However, readers should note some relevant developments in the surrounding law.
The Sentencing Guidelines Council guidelines on causing death by dangerous driving referenced in the case have since been superseded. The Sentencing Council issued updated guidelines for this offence, which took effect from 1 August 2008 and have been further revised since. Sentencing courts now apply the current Sentencing Council guidelines rather than those of the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The underlying framework — including the relevance of a driver’s knowledge of a medical condition affecting their fitness to drive — remains part of the culpability assessment, but practitioners and students should consult the current guidelines directly.
Cooksley [2003] EWCA Crim 996 and Richardson [2006] EWCA Crim 3186 continue to be relevant authorities on sentencing for causing death by dangerous driving, though both must now be read in light of the updated Sentencing Council guidelines, which take precedence in practice.
The general legal position on medical conditions and dangerous driving — including the relevance of a defendant’s awareness of an impending episode and the potential for mitigation based on health and delay — remains good law. Overall, this summary remains a reliable account of the case itself, but students should be aware that the sentencing guidelines landscape has materially changed since 2009.
